The Environment Thread

[FrostyWinnipeg]

On 2019-06-17 at 5:10 PM, Mark F said:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/06/13/news/michael-e-mann-took-climate-change-deniers-court-they-apologized
 

 

Sent that to Freep. Surprised no mention as Frontier Centre is local.

[blue_gold_84]

19 hours ago, pigseye said:

Another recent reconstruction for this region also indicated the Early Holocene was sea ice free and that modern sea ice conditions are among the most extensive of the last 9,500 years.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/paper-less-arctic-sea-ice-early-holocene/

 

Hahaha... More steaming bull turds from another shite website that's - go figure - linked to No Tricks Zone and The Heartland Institute.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch/

Quote

History

Founded in 2010, Climate Change Dispatch is a climate change denial blog edited by attorney James Taylor. According to their about page: “Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) is a science and environmental news site showing its visitors the facts behind the theory of global warming, which are not being told by the mainstream media and the global-warming zealots. As noted below^*, we do not believe in consensus science. Beliefs belong in church, in prayers, but not in the scientific method.”

Funded by / Ownership

The owner and editor of Climate Change Dispatch is James Taylor, who is a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. Funding for the Heartland Institute is derived from Fossil Fuel and Tobacco industry businesses.

Yet according to the Climate Chance Dispatch about page, they are “100% owned and operated by private citizens, doing it part-time and/or for free. We do not receive any money from oil or energy companies, or from ANY organization that receives money from the energy industry.” While this may be true that they do not receive money directly, the owner of the website does receive money from the Heartland Institute and hence the fossil fuel industry. The website contains advertising and a donation link.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Climate Change Dispatch is very honest in that they claim they do not support the consensus of science and that they deny the impact of human-made global warming (AWG). Articles contain loaded emotional language such as this: Election Slaughter For Climate Activism. This story is a republishing of James Taylor’s article written for the right biased and factually mixed American Thinker. In general, most content on this website is republished articles from other right biased sources that question climate change. There is some original content published as well, that also works to minimize concern over climate change. This source also promotes conspiracies such as Oxford University publishing fake news. Essentially, this is a website that promotes anti-climate change propaganda.

It's so nice when you're not a participant in this thread.

[Mark F]

On 2019-06-23 at 7:22 AM, blue_gold_84 said:

It's so nice when you're not a participant in this thread.

I have the Trump loving know nothing blocked. saw his post  though.

These types will say that there is more ice on the Arctic Ocean than in the last __________ thousand years, even when it is ice free.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Mark F

[Mark F]

Quote

The Paris Air Show sold $15 billion in planes. A $4 million electric stole the show. it was Cape Air’s order of the first commercial electric airplanes that drew particular attention.

The Israeli startup Eviation Aircraft took a “double-digit” number of orders for a $4 million electric plane dubbed Alice. The aircraft can fly 650 miles (1,046 km) at around 500 miles per hour (805 km/h) with three electric motors on the tail and one on each wingtip. nine passengers.

  impressive numbers. 

https://qz.com/1650449/electric-airplanes-take-flight-at-the-paris-air-show/

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Mark F

[FrostyWinnipeg]

‘Potentially dangerous’ heatwave set to strike Europe

Edited June 24, 2019 by FrostyWinnipeg

[kelownabomberfan]

On 2019-06-22 at 9:05 PM, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Sent that to Freep. Surprised no mention as Frontier Centre is local.

How's Mann's lawsuit going against Mark Steyn?  Last I heard it was on year eight, as no court wants to touch it.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

How's Mann's lawsuit going against Mark Steyn?  Last I heard it was on year eight, as no court wants to touch it.

Interesting- you got a link for that? I would like to check out that information as I am curious to what is going on with that too. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[FrostyWinnipeg]

28 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Interesting- you got a link for that? I would like to check out that information as I am curious to what is going on with that too. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/24-media-organizations-oppose-defamation-suit-waged-by-climate-scientist_2810374.html

[Mark F]

 

Quote

superannuation funds and investors representing US$34tn in assets – nearly half of the total under management across the globe – have called on world leaders to bring in carbon pricing and phase out coal power to limit global heating to 1.5C.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/26/super-funds-and-investors-with-34tn-urge-leaders-to-speed-up-climate-action

[pigseye]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252572926_Ice_free_Arctic_Ocean_an_Early_Holocene_analogue

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162

Nothing new about the study I posted. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

36 minutes ago, pigseye said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252572926_Ice_free_Arctic_Ocean_an_Early_Holocene_analogue

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162

Nothing new about the study I posted. 

So what is your point? You posted two studies, what are you trying to show people Here?

 

Not trying to be obtuse Here, but I am not sure what you are trying to show us.

Edited June 26, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252572926_Ice_free_Arctic_Ocean_an_Early_Holocene_analogue

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162

Nothing new about the study I posted. 

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today — without any human influence.

 

Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.

What’s more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today’s cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. NOAA has a page on this that contains the following quote:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today’s warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

31 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today — without any human influence.

 

Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.

What’s more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today’s cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. NOAA has a page on this that contains the following quote:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today’s warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

That is a wonderful link- thanks for that. I guess that will be my source when a poster links a dubious study or uses a study for misrepresenting facts.

[pigseye]

21 hours ago, Wideleft said:

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today — without any human influence.

 

Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.

What’s more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today’s cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. NOAA has a page on this that contains the following quote:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today’s warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

Wrong, it was a global event even wiki has it right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).^[1] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.^[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef about 5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in ¹⁸O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.^[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).^{[citation needed]} While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the Tropics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.^[4]

and orbital forcing doesn't explain it,

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. The delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago or persisted until 4,000 years ago. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the north.

Science is constantly evolving, don't let anyone tell you they have all the answers.

Another new study that looks like it will contradict the CO2 theory and long wave radiation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082220

Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land‐atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear‐sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full‐sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Wrong, it was a global event even wiki has it right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).^[1] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.^[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef about 5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in ¹⁸O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.^[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).^{[citation needed]} While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the Tropics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.^[4]

and orbital forcing doesn't explain it,

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. The delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago or persisted until 4,000 years ago. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the north.

Science is constantly evolving, don't let anyone tell you they have all the answers.

Another new study that looks like it will contradict the CO2 theory and long wave radiation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082220

Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land‐atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear‐sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full‐sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.

You just reiterated what Week left posted.

"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

 

 

 

[Wideleft]

14 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Wrong, it was a global event even wiki has it right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).^[1] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.^[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef about 5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in ¹⁸O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.^[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).^{[citation needed]} While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the Tropics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.^[4]

and orbital forcing doesn't explain it,

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. The delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago or persisted until 4,000 years ago. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the north.

Science is constantly evolving, don't let anyone tell you they have all the answers.

Another new study that looks like it will contradict the CO2 theory and long wave radiation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082220

Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land‐atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear‐sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full‐sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.

I'm pulling the quote directly from NOAA as it appears the source info has been updated changing the "only in summer" to "and true in the winter for SOME locations".

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

The upshot is that scientists agree that there was warming during the Holocene AND they all agree on the cause.  They also agree that is a different cause than what we see today.

As for "new exciting CO2 studies":

 

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.

Answer: There is no “proof” in science — that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.

Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don’t be surprised if you get no answer!

Edited June 27, 2019 by Wideleft

[pigseye]

22 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.

That's misleading and inaccurate,

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).

 

22 hours ago, Wideleft said:

What’s more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today’s cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. NOAA has a page on this that contains the following quote:

Again misleading and inaccurate,

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. The delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback.

He didn't agree, he posted false statements then linked to the right answers.

[pigseye]

Half the warming is made up and the other half is due to natural events such as ocean currents, according to the deniers anyways, just saying. 

https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

Half the warming is made up and the other half is due to natural events such as ocean currents, according to the deniers anyways, just saying. 

https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/

 

Why do you keep posting articles from that website. 

It has been thoroughly discredited.

 

Try something less... shitty. Its a **** site. 

[pigseye]

Here's another one then.

https://www.thegwpf.com/whatever-happened-to-the-global-warming-hiatus/

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/06/nasa-data-tampering-not-just-for-temperatures/

 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by pigseye
P

[JCon]

4 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Why do you keep posting articles from that website. 

It has been thoroughly discredited.

 

Try something less... shitty. Its a **** site. 

Every site they post is dodgy because deniers don't believe in science. They like to make things up and these sites meet their needs. 

[pigseye]

Facts, you don't need facts, just yell and scream the loudest,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/02/climate-advocate-outrage-over-global-cooling-congress-tweet/

https://realclimatescience.com/?s=Adjustments+

 

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

Every site they post is dodgy because deniers don't believe in science. They like to make things up and these sites meet their needs. 

I like to post new studies on the subject not just insult people for having a differing opinion. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Here's another one then.

https://www.thegwpf.com/whatever-happened-to-the-global-warming-hiatus/

 

That is no better- that is a known climate misinformation dispenser, heavily funded by oil and gas companies. In fact it is worse than notrick- because it is much better funded and much looser with their science "facts"

[pigseye]

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

That is no better- that is a known climate misinformation dispenser, heavily funded by oil and gas companies. In fact it is worse than notrick- because it is much better funded and much looser with their science "facts"

Which is why I prefer to post from no tricks zone.